How do we define what is good and evil?

[jbh28]

No, I don't understand and neither do you. My argument is against the presumptions of Calvinism which teaches that men CANNOT believe or repent unless made to through an effectual work of God and since I don't accept that presumption the argument wouldn't apply to me. I affirm contra-casual freedom, you don't, so the argument doesn't apply to my view.

It does. You are in no position to say I don't understand if you don't. God can save every single person. He doesn't. So one could say they have an excuse for not being in heaven. God didn't save him even though he had the power to. Of course both of us would reject such a statement, but that's the essence of your argument. You are saying that since God doesn't enable some men to believe, they have an excuse. I say that if God doesn't save when he could, then they would have an excuse by using the same reasoning that you are using. Understand now? I'm simply using the same reasoning that you are using.

You deny that God choosing not to grant someone the ability to believe is a good excuse for unbelief? How?

same reason you deny God not saving someone that he could save is a good excuse for going to hell.

Willfully? That means two completely different things in our two views. Man's will is determined by God's choice in your view, not the man. [/quote]Straw man. Man's will for rejection of Christ is not determined by God's choice. You should know that since you used to be a Calvinist. Man's will for rejecting Christ is because he has no desire to come to Christ.

Unless a man is first regenerated by God's choice, he is UNABLE from birth to be willing by God's choice, according to your view, thus giving him the perfect excuse.

I believe regeneration and faith happen at the same time.

Again, you have to be willfully just ignoring that you are being inconsistent. Forget about the fact that you are a long ways away from the Scripture that clearly teaches man's inability to come to Christ. You said man would have an excuse. I said it would be the same for your view. Just because you deny it doesn't mean it isn't the case. Man has no excuse because God doesn't keep man from repenting.

Anyway, enough with the attempts at logical understand or excuse arguments, get back to the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that the man without the Spirit cannot understand the spiritual things. He doesn't seek after God. He is spiritually dead. Clearly the Bible teaches this.

 

[jonathan.borland]

God enables all men to be saved. What else does it mean when it says that salvific grace has enlightened all men? (Titus 2:12)

Of course not all receive him, but as many as do . . . .

 

[jbh28]

God enables all men to be saved. What else does it mean when it says that salvific grace has enlightened all men? (Titus 2:12)

Of course not all receive him, but as many as do . . . .

"Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world"

???? I'm not seeing it. Did you list the wrong passage?

 

[jonathan.borland]

My bad. Titus 2:11.

 

[glfredrick]

God says that we are without excuse, no matter the situation.

 

[glfredrick]

No, it would be libertarian free will or irresistible grace. If you want to use the word 'coercive' fine, but its your word, not mine.

As the NOTE at the bottom said, the 'force' wasn't the point of the analogy. The child being forced in the chair was merely representative of 'irresistible' work of the father as compared to the father allowing the child to respond freely, that is all. I could have made the option of the father putting a medication in the child's drink which makes him want to be compliant. Would that better represent your view? Either way, the POINT of the analogy was to show jbh how his argument regarding the boy being without excuse remains.

Way to wiggle... You took up minor parts of what I said and bypassed the main point, that the Father could make the sitting of the son the most desirable choice, and thus the son, from his free moral agency would sit, and the father, who has decreed that the son sit, be satisfied.

Or does your god not have the ability to effect the heart of man in that fashion without being either "coersive," "forceful," or otherwise contra the free moral choice of the individual?

I've found that God has the power and ability -- and that He uses them -- to cause people to will what He desires for them with no force whatsoever involved. Would you disagree?

 

[jbh28]

God says that we are without excuse, no matter the situation.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

God says that we are without excuse, no matter the situation.

Say it with me, "Question Begging."

 

[jbh28]

Say it with me, "Question Begging."

Enough with your failed attempt at trying to pin fallacies on people. The Bible clearly states that we are without excuse. End of story.

 

[glfredrick]

Enough with your failed attempt at trying to pin fallacies on people. The Bible clearly states that we are without excuse. End of story.

Indeed... This rationale that looks to discover an excuse is nothing more than the rebellion the Bible speaks of.

 

[jonathan.borland]

We really are without excuse simply because God did everything he could do to save us except override our free will which would have defeated the whole purpose of creating anything to begin with due to the obvious implications of determinism.

 

[Skandelon]

It does. You are in no position to say I don't understand if you don't. God can save every single person. He doesn't. So one could say they have an excuse for not being in heaven.

Which is tantamount to the claiming the boy of the analogy I presented earlier has an excuse for not sitting and eating his meal because the father didn't force him to sit down. It's ridiculous because it assumes God hasn't given the men the contra-casual freedom to respond and thus can't bare full responsibility for their choice.

God didn't save him even though he had the power to. Of course both of us would reject such a statement, but that's the essence of your argument. You are saying that since God doesn't enable some men to believe, they have an excuse. I say that if God doesn't save when he could, then they would have an excuse by using the same reasoning that you are using. Understand now? I'm simply using the same reasoning that you are using.

I understand what you are attempting to do, but what you are missing is that we have BOTH affirmed that God presents men with a choice to make, so that part is a given. So, we have to work within that given framework. Now the question is WHY does a man reject God's revelation of himself. Is it his contra-causal free choice that is determined by the free moral agent, or it really God's choice? If its God's choice and God didn't grant them what they needed then an unbeliever has an excuse. Stating that God could have irresistibly saved everyone despite their choice is not even in view because we have both already accepted that a choice is made. The issue now is if that choice is divinely determined or self-determined. (note: when I say 'self-determined' I mean that it was divinely determined to be self-determined...i.e. Tozer's quote)

Understand now? I'm arguing about an unbeliever's excuse for making the wrong choice, NOT his excuse for going to hell. You are taking the latter to argue the former, which is a "non-sequiter" as I said before.

Straw man. Man's will for rejection of Christ is not determined by God's choice.

This is where we part ways. I agree with all the double predestinarians on this point. There is no logical consistency in the Calvinism which tries to make the case for total inability, limited atonement and irresistible grace without affirming the concept of divine reprobation. When God chose to punish all mankind for the sin of Adam by making them all unable to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled he ACTIVELY and SOVEREIGNLY sealed their fate from before they were even made. You really can't get around that, HOWEVER I will affirm that you do AFFIRM this view despite the apparent contradiction.

You should know that since you used to be a Calvinist. Man's will for rejecting Christ is because he has no desire to come to Christ.

And why can't he have that desire even after being confronted by God's powerful appeal to be reconciled? God's choice to seal mankind from birth in the totally depraved condition. You can't get around that. Plus, I could quote many notable Calvinists who affirm double predestination.

I believe regeneration and faith happen at the same time.

Me too, and its clear that the causal relationship is that life comes through faith, not the other way around.

John 20:31:
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Man has no excuse because God doesn't keep man from repenting.

Unless you believe the fairy-god-mother is the one who made the decision to punish all mankind with a totally depraved nature from birth due to the Fall, then this statement is false according to the claims of your system. In Calvinism God kept, keeps and will continue to keep all reprobates from being able to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled. You can sugar coat that however you'd like and deny it, but the facts are very clear.

Anyway, enough with the attempts at logical understand or excuse arguments, get back to the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that the man without the Spirit

And who came down at Pentecost to convict the world of sin after Christ was lifted up? THE SPIRIT!!!

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. -- Jesus

We are not WITHOUT THE SPIRIT.

 

[Skandelon]

We really are without excuse simply because God did everything he could do to save us except override our free will which would have defeated the whole purpose of creating anything to begin with due to the obvious implications of determinism.

John Wesley made a similar point when he wrote: Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. If he had no more freedom than the sun, the moon, or the stars, he would be no more accountable than them. On supposition that he had no more freedom than them, the stones of the earth would be as capable of reward, and as liable to punishment, as man: One would be as accountable as the other. Yea, and it would be as absurd to ascribe either virtue or vice to him as to ascribe it to the stock of a tree.

 

[glfredrick]

We really are without excuse simply because God did everything he could do to save us except override our free will which would have defeated the whole purpose of creating anything to begin with due to the obvious implications of determinism.

There you went beyond what the Word says...

Please show me chapter and verse in context where the Scriptures lay out the position you just expressed.

You cannot...

 

[glfredrick]

John Wesley made a similar point when he wrote: Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. If he had no more freedom than the sun, the moon, or the stars, he would be no more accountable than them. On supposition that he had no more freedom than them, the stones of the earth would be as capable of reward, and as liable to punishment, as man: One would be as accountable as the other. Yea, and it would be as absurd to ascribe either virtue or vice to him as to ascribe it to the stock of a tree.

Question for you free birds...

Who damns us to hell when we choose? Do we have a choice?

 

[Skandelon]

Enough with your failed attempt at trying to pin fallacies on people. The Bible clearly states that we are without excuse. End of story.

When someone says something like, "Your view is just wrong..." Or "Scripture supports our view..." Or "My view is truth..." they are begging the question. They are presuming that the point up for debate has been settled and it is the lowest form of debate. It is like children on the play ground who continue to say "uh-huh" and "nuh-huh" endlessly. Interestingly enough, when someone attempts to point this out the response is typically for one to put their fingers in their ears and run off....i.e. 'end of story.'

 

[glfredrick]

When someone says something like, "Your view is just wrong..." Or "Scripture supports our view..." Or "My view is truth..." they are begging the question. They are presuming that the point up for debate has been settled and it is the lowest form of debate. It is like children on the play ground who continue to say "uh-huh" and "nuh-huh" endlessly. Interestingly enough, when someone attempts to point this out the response is typically for one to put their fingers in their ears and run off....i.e. 'end of story.'

You are now squirming and weasling because you've been pinned by an argument that you dare not refute lest you be seen for who you are.

So, will you refute this:

Rom 1:20 (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Or this, shared to GENTILES (which removes your ever-present NPP excuse):

Act 14:15-17 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

The persons to whom Paul shared the Acts 14 passage knew EXACTLY what he said to them. They stoned Paul and left him for dead outside the city gates for saying it.

 

[Skandelon]

Who damns us to hell when we choose? Do we have a choice?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I do like the food at FreeBirds.

When an unbeliever chooses to reject Christ gracious provision they will suffer the consequences of that choice. They perish because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved.

 

[jonathan.borland]

John Wesley made a similar point when he wrote: Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. If he had no more freedom than the sun, the moon, or the stars, he would be no more accountable than them. On supposition that he had no more freedom than them, the stones of the earth would be as capable of reward, and as liable to punishment, as man: One would be as accountable as the other. Yea, and it would be as absurd to ascribe either virtue or vice to him as to ascribe it to the stock of a tree.

That's not John Wesley but Justin martyr. Maybe he forgot to cite him but that's Justin all right.

 

[Skandelon]

You are now squirming and weasling because you've been pinned by an argument that you dare not refute lest you be seen for who you are.

Again with the accusations and no substantiation? Why doesn't that surprise me. What argument do you suppose I'm attempting to avoid exactly? Quote it, because a simple survey of the previous posts shows that I have willingly and thoroughly responded to each argument line by line...something you rarely do. Instead, your MO is to make baseless and unfounded accusations and then run away when asked to provide support which is quite revealing...